PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QMAR vs. ENFR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QMAR vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 11.40% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.


QMAR

1D
-1.06%
1M
-0.77%
YTD
11.40%
6M
11.38%
1Y
20.76%
3Y*
15.65%
5Y*
11.30%
10Y*

ENFR

1D
1.51%
1M
-4.52%
YTD
24.93%
6M
25.03%
1Y
27.76%
3Y*
28.90%
5Y*
20.07%
10Y*
11.98%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QMAR vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
11.40%10.89%16.11%35.47%-16.56%12.87%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF
24.93%5.88%42.17%15.63%17.48%16.11%

Correlation

The correlation between QMAR and ENFR is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.15

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.16

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021

0.30

The correlation between QMAR and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.30 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QMAR vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QMAR
ENFR

Technology

58.7%

-

Communication Services

14.3%

-

Consumer Cyclical

11.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.4%

-

Healthcare

3.7%

-

Industrials

2.6%
3.4%

Utilities

1.2%
1.4%

Basic Materials

1.0%

-

Energy

0.5%
98.5%

Financial Services

0.2%
0.1%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QMAR
58.7%
ENFR

-

Communication Services

QMAR
14.3%
ENFR

-

Consumer Cyclical

QMAR
11.4%
ENFR

-

Consumer Defensive

QMAR
6.4%
ENFR

-

Healthcare

QMAR
3.7%
ENFR

-

Industrials

QMAR
2.6%
ENFR
3.4%

Utilities

QMAR
1.2%
ENFR
1.4%

Basic Materials

QMAR
1.0%
ENFR

-

Energy

QMAR
0.5%
ENFR
98.5%

Financial Services

QMAR
0.2%
ENFR
0.1%

Real Estate

QMAR
0.1%
ENFR

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QMAR vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

QMAR
QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank

ENFR
ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

QMAR vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


QMARENFRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.74

1.32

+0.42

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.49

3.23

+3.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

39.78

8.24

+31.54

QMAR vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMAR Sharpe Ratio is 3.19, which is higher than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMAR and ENFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

QMAR vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and ENFR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QMARENFRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.83%

-68.28%

+48.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.21%

-8.64%

+5.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.91%

-15.58%

-0.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.83%

-20.29%

+0.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.65%

-4.71%

+3.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.26%

-15.94%

+12.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.52%

3.38%

-2.86%

Volatility

QMAR vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 2.92%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 5.69%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QMARENFRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.92%

5.69%

-2.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

11.60%

-6.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.55%

14.86%

-8.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.01%

19.25%

-5.24%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.83%

24.68%

-10.85%

QMAR vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

QMAR vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF
4.02%4.77%4.41%5.48%5.23%7.86%7.57%5.81%3.98%2.98%3.31%3.34%
QMAR
FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


QMAR and ENFR have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ENFR has higher volatility (5.69%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

On 5-year performance, ENFR leads with 20.07% vs 11.30% for QMAR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 20.07% return vs 11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.35% for ENFR.

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.88), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QMAR and ENFR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer